Don’t put a bucket in your shower
Contrary to popular wisdom (even mentioned on our site a while back), collecting excess shower water in a bucket to use on your flowers will probably make the water shortage worse in the long run, not better.
Before I get into the reasons, there are a few points that must be made:
- If you have a septic system, this doesn’t apply. This only counts if you are connected to the sewer system.
- If you feel the need to water your plants at the expense of the overall water storage, this doesn’t apply.
For the rest of us that use the city sewer systems and are willing to let some plants die to help the greater good, take the bucket out of your shower — the more water you can put into your drain, the better.
Obviously, the best thing you can do is to use less water. However, of the water that you use you want to send as much as possible back down the drain. That water gets treated and released back into the Chattahoochee River (or other water system, depending where you live).
“So what?”, you say — that water is gone, it’s heading south, and doesn’t help us. Ahh, but it does. The bulk of the water being released from Lake Lanier is not for Atlanta to use, but to meet a minimum flow requirement down at Jim Woodruff Dam in Florida (currently 4,750 CFS, I believe). The water that goes down your drain eventually makes it to Woodruff Dam. The more water they get down there, the less we need to release from Lake Lanier. Voilà!
Here are a few more examples of how this could apply to you:
- We have a dehumidifier in our basement that collects a good bit of water during the summer. We had been using it to water some flowers in our yard. However, our best bet is probably to empty the basin into a drain in our house. The more water we put in there, the more they can keep in Lanier. We like our flowers, but I’d rather use that water to keep a few gallons more in the lake.
- A user e-mailed me to ask if anything can be done with the hundreds of gallons of water that have collected on pool covers. I told him to put it into the sewer. That water will reach Woodruff Dam, and Lanier will be able to keep a bit in reserve as a result.
Again, your best move is to use less water. It wouldn’t make sense to pull extra water out of the tap only to have it go down the drain — it’d be a waste of time and money, and some of the water will still be lost (evaporation, leaks, etc). However, the more water you can put back into the drain (as opposed to putting on flowers, grass, etc), the better off we’ll be.
Agree? Disagree? Post in the comments.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:45 am
I have a bucket in the shower, but use the water to flush the toilet. The bucket stays in the bathroom that way which is pretty easy, and the water goes back into the system.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Whenever I see the drought maps on the web, FL appears to be a much better shape than North Georgia. I wonder why it is considered necessary to drain North Georgia in order to supply FL with a minimum flow level? How and why was the flow rate established, and why isn’t it modified to reflect the facts on the ground?
February 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Right on target Mickey. If I were going to disagree (which would be stupid because you are making the same point I have been making for months), I would say that this is a bit less true now than it was a couple of months ago.
Right now I don’t believe they are releasing water from Lanier to meet minimum flow targets downstream. I believe right now the releases are made at a level to supply Atlanta and dilute Atlanta’s sewage to an appropriate level.
Nevertheless I’m onboard with you particularly since the downstream reservoirs are so small that they will quickly discharge unless they have lots of rain or releases from Lanier.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I’m am right in line with “mike”. I use the shower bucket to flush the toilet, which seems to get around your objection. It drains to the treatment plant, AND it results in less water being used in the first place.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Josh — I agree completely. That is a great suggestion.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Mickey & Mike, thanks for posting this, I hadn’t thought of that. One thing though, doesn’t the excess water that you pour onto the plants make it’s way into the watershed also? Granted, potted plants lose most of their water through evaporation (unless you overfill), but in a garden I would think some would be returned.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Andrew - Some probably would, but very little. It takes quite a while for water to work its way through, by which time most (or all) of it would have evaporated.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I hate to break it to you, but using the bucket of water to fill your toilet or clean your dishes doesn’t do what we think it does.
Assume: Any water that makes it entirely through the system from intake to outflow is no different than water diverted to say, a side stream that rejoins the main stream further down. If you divert 10 gallons, or 50 million gallons, the net result downstream is zero change.
Play the math out -
The Dam releases 800 million gallons
Atlanta intakes 500 million gallons
Atlanta releases 300 million gallons
Downstream gets 600 million gallons (300 excess, 300 from the release)
Now let’s look at a conservation example:
You pull 10 gallons for a shower, and 2 to flush the toilet, totalling 12 gallons, which all go into the sewer and are re-released. Atlanta’s water intake grows by 12 gallons, and it’s outflow grows by 12 gallons. A net change of nothing. 600 million gallons still go downstream, just 12 more gallons come from Atlanta and 12 less from the river.
Now to conserve -
You pull 10 gallons for a shower, CONSERVE 2 gallons with a bucket, and use that to flush the toilet. 10 gallons are still taken in by the shower, and in the end, 10 gallons are released.
AH! you say, but don’t you see, you saved 2 gallons right there! We used two less gallons of fresh water.
But that’s where your mind is playing tricks on you. None of that water was ever going to be consumed. And so, conserving it means nothing from a water volume perspective.
12 gallons taken in and 12 gallons released is the same as 10 gallons taken in and 10 gallons released. Or 1000 gallons taken in and 1000 gallons released. Heck, Atlanta could suck all 800 million gallons of flow from the dam in, so long as they still only consumed 200 million and released 600 million.
Now, there are some real world benefits.
Certainly, that’s 2 gallons less that has to be processed to drinkable water, and that’s 2 gallons less that has to be processed back to watershed quality water. There’s energy there. And that does mean you will be spending less money on water.
And, and this is important, should the ACE change their water flow plans so that they are taking into account only the water needed by Atlanta, then you would be conserving 2 gallons, because the next day ACE would see 2 gallons more flowing downstream than before, and cut back by two gallons.
But so long as they are determining the water releases from Buford Dam by the water needed downstream of Atlanta, saving water in a bucket and using it for your toilet won’t change anything. Neither will taking substantially shorter showers, or taking any other step that does not reduce CONSUMED (as opposed to just diverted) water.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Where we are really going to make an impact is if somehow we get more homes on sewer and less on septic. I’m not sure how we make that happen but would love to hear ideas.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Thanks rkolter,
That’s an interesting point. Water isn’t being saved directly by doing this, but only through side benefits like the water processing. I’ve wondered if the reduction in my shower water going directly down the drain actually makes processing more difficult for the water treatment. In your example I used to have 10 gallons of fairly clean shower water and 2 gallons of toilet water that needed treating, but now I have only 8 gallons of shower water and 2 gallons of toilet water, so that could, in theory, make the water they are treating less diluted and more difficult to treat.
One clear up side of doing this and taking shorter showers is that I’ve seen my water and gas bills drop. Not sure if it helps with the water shortage at all, but that’s money in my pocket.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
rkolter, thanks for that analysis. I don’t live in Atlanta, so the peculiarities of that system are pretty abstruse for me. Seems completely opposite to the system out west, where say, Wyoming chooses not to release any water to Nebraska at all until Wyoming’s reservoirs are completely brimming.
I still think that, in the long run, conservation is going to be Atlanta’s answer - notwithstanding the arcana of the water rights agreements!
February 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Josh- Georgia has no “choice” in releasing water downstream to AL and FL,whether the dam is brimming or not.Lanier is controlled by the fed govt.If we had any “choice” in the matter we wouldnt allow it,least of all to WATER-RICH Florida.
I havent put a bucket in my shower,but I have a smaller bucket to catch the sink drip,and use that for the toilet.I dont do any outdoor watering and my landlord has never used sprinklers,a hose or any watering system on the grass in front of our apartments in the 12 years Ive lived in the building.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
There’s something that bothers me about this analysis, on this forum we tend to think in terms only of volume of flow, but there’s quality as well. The city of Atlanta isn’t really discharging water that is the same as what is being taken in. The implication of this this, the recent work on the city of Atlanta sewers is being done because they are forced to. The city of Atlanta has been continually discharging untreated sewage at times because of the aging infrastrcture, in violation of the Clean Water Act. Is dirty water being discharged down stream is probably better than no water? This is an immediate problem for downstream users, (I’ve been told the creeks downstream of Atlanta do smell like sewage after heavy rains) but there’s an interesting implication: One of the rationals for the U.S Fish and Wildlife decision that regulates flow in the Apalachicola Basin that increased flows are needed to compensate for the detrimental effects of pollution on this sensitive ecological area. Now I have no idea how clean the water is by the time it makes it to the Basin but I can very well imagine that if Atlanta were to stop discharging waters that were as polluted, then the ecology downstream would be in much better shape (hence more able to deal with lower flows). One big but here however, is that the power generation that occurs for Alabama doesn’t really need clean water, just lots of it, so they wouldn’t benefit any from cleaner water.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
My child took a field trip to a waste treatment facility and told me one of the hardest things they have to deal with is grease in the water. So if you want to help out, don’t dump oils or grease down your sink. It’s not good for your plumbing anyway. Save an old soup can to pour grease in and wipe out the pan with a paper towel before washing. Dump the can in the trash.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
RKolter is making the assumption that there is no water lost in the pipe system or during treatment before being returned to the river, and it’s a very poor assumption to make. Most water systems lose at least 10% of their water to pipe leaks, and 10% loss is considered a very efficient operation. Also, if you’ve ever seen a sewage treatment plant, you probably noticed large, often churning, pools of water being treated. One thing that people really aren’t talking about is evaporative loss and I’m certain you’re losing more than you would think to evaporation from those treatment pools. So, the equation isn’t as simple as one gallon out, one gallon back in; it’s more like, one gallon out and what goes back in is one gallon minus water lost to leaks minus water lost to evaporation during treatment. In the end, if your goal is to fill a downstream reservoir, it is more efficient to use less water, leaving more water in the stream. (Yes there is evaporative loss from the stream, but ideally the stream should be bordered by forest which would help keep temperatures downa nd minimize evaporatioon).
And there are other considerations besides merely quantity of water. Andrew S. has a good point - the less water in a stream the less water there is to dilute the pollution being put into the stream. And that extra gallon of water you take out of the stream to flush is a gallon of water that isn’t availible to fish, mayflies, mussels, and crayfish. I know some people don’t care about fish, mussels, mayflies and crayfish, but I do and I’m not very comfortable with people being flippant about their fate. Their well-being is a reflection of the health of the rivers - the same rivers we depend on for drinking water and our fishing and aquatic recreation industries. When stream animals are doing poorly, the wise person doesn’t ask “why should we care about them,” but rather “what’s wrong with our rivers.”
February 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
While the premise of “Don’t put a bucket in your shower” is reasonable, in fact, for much of the Atlanta metro area (specifically, part of Fulton Co.and major parts of DeKalb & Gwinnett Counties) this is complicated by a serious problem. In these areas, water is taken from the Chattahoochee, but wastewater is treated and discharged into the South River / Ocmulgee river system. So this water does not ever return to the Chattahoochee, but instead makes its way to the Atlantic seaboard. In areas affected by this “inter-basin transfer” whether or not shower water etc. is sent down the drain will not make a difference to the volume of water in the downstream Chattahoochee River. Overall conservation in water usage, however, remains extremely important.
For further information about this inter-basin transfer problem in metro Atlanta, see http://georgiawaterplanning.org/Files_PDF/20060818_SAC_Discussion_Paper.pdf
February 27th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
David T. — thanks for the link! That’s absolutely fascinating, I had no idea.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
So I just added up all the Chat-to something else and it’s 73.6 million gallons a day on average. A sizeable fraction. The Chattahoochee gains 23.6 millions gallons a day from the Coosa so that’s still a net loss of 50 million gallons per day, 10% of Atlanta’s water intake (using rkolter’s number above).
February 28th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Mickey,
I like your idea in theory. Aside from the other questions/concerns listed on this post, I have two additional questions/conerns.
1. does the Corps get reports from the water treatment plants on their discharges and then adjust their releases from Lanier based on that? Because if the Corps doesn’t know or care about treated water releases, then they’re just going to release the same amount of water their manual tells them to. In that case, it wouldn’t help save us anything.
2. With the small amount of daily water that Atlanta uses compared to daily releases from Lanier, I don’t think it would save enough to make a material difference.
But all conservation efforts are good.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
That’s a great point David. Actually this water is supposed to be returning to the Chatahoochee but the tunnel to do that was never built. It was going to be dug underneath black neigborhoods - so was therefore a racist tunnel.
That tunnel needs to be built. The racial argument is a ridiculous reason not to build it, and the impact can be acheived will be enormous without having to ban swimming pools, or lose jobs from shutting down industires such as landscaping, bottling plants, agriculture, etc.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Aquaholic - Actually you make a good point, although we’ve discussed this in the past and reached two conclusions:
1) Evaporation loss is negligable. While it exists, remember you are talking about evaporation only of the water you’d conserve by drawing less water from the river (2 gallons in my example). And of that loss, you only can claim the loss due to evaporation that is greater than the evaporation that water would experience running down the river.
2) Leakage is more significant, but remember that while much of Atlanta’s sewer system is antique, sewage is not pressurized. So for example, sewage doesn’t really leak into groundwater, but groundwater can leak -into- the sewage system (groundwater is under pressure). You’re also not considering rainwater, which “leaks” into the system. There are more leaky inputs than outputs, generally speaking, in a sewage system.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
[...] As long as the water makes it back into the river, it’s not depleting the level of the lake. Here is a post from a few weeks ago where we went into more detail about [...]
March 13th, 2008 at 10:41 am
[...] again, it seems that some people don’t understand how things work. From the article: Every day, 18 million gallons of waste water is treated at Gwinnett’s F. Wayne [...]
April 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
[...] leaks are a bigger waste of water than the water you flush down your toilet. As we’ve said before, water going down the drain isn’t necessarily “wasted”. However, water that [...]